Trademark Dilution

November 25, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Dunkin’ Donuts Sued on Allegations of Deceiving Consumers with Fake Splenda

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Heartland Consumer Products LLC of Carmel, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, as well as related wrongdoing under the Indiana State Trademark Act, the common law of the State of Indiana and the Indiana Crime Victims Act. The intellectual property at issue pertains to Splenda®, a Heartland trademark under which it offers sucralose, a low-calorie sweetener.

Defendants in the litigation are Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC of Canton, Massachusetts. They are accused of “deceiving customers into believing the Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants carry Splenda® Brand Sweetener,” by both tacitly and affirmatively misrepresenting that the non-Splenda sucralose product that the Dunkin’ Defendants offer is, in fact, Heartland’s Splenda. Plaintiff contends that consumers were confused about whether the sweetener that the Dunkin’ Defendants offered was Splenda and that some have complained that adding the other sweetener to their Dunkin’ Donuts products imparted a “funny taste.”

Defendants discontinued their agreement to purchase and offer Heartland’s Splenda in April 2016. According to the Indiana complaint, following that decision, Defendants began offering sweetener in yellow packets similar to the single-serving packets in which Splenda is offered to the public. Plaintiff contends that, when asked, Defendants in a “clear majority of stores affirmatively represented, through their agents or employees, that non-Splenda® sucralose sweetener was instead Splenda® Brand Sweetener.” Plaintiff further contends that Dunkin’ Defendants are misappropriating Plaintiff’s trademarked “Sweet Swaps®” by the use of a similar term “Smart Swaps.”

October 26, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: AAA Sues AAA Automotive Parts

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff The American Automobile Association, Inc. (“AAA”) filed a trademark lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. Two Bloomington Defendants are named, AAA Automotive Parts and the company’s owner. Defendants also do business as AAA Automotive & Truck Parts, and d/b/a AAA Automotive Parts.

AAA, a not-for-profit corporation, offers “travel and automobile products and services (including automobile repair services at its AAA Car Care Centers and through AAA Approved automobile repair businesses), financial advice, insurance and warranty coverage, and discounts.”

Defendants own and run a website, TRIPLEAPARTS.COM, on which they advertise automobile-related goods and services. Defendants also have brick-and-mortar shops in Indianapolis and Griffith, Indiana as well as locations in Missouri and Florida.

In this Indiana trademark lawsuit, lawyers for AAA listed the following causes of action:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement in Violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
• Count II: Federal False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
• Count III: Federal Trademark Dilution in Violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act
• Count IV: Cybersquatting Under Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act
• Count V: Trademark Dilution Under Ind. Code § 24-2-1-13.5
• Count VI: Trademark Infringement Under Ind. Code § 24-2-1-13

• Count VII: Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement Under Common Law

AAA, which claims ownership to over 100 trademarks, contends that the following trademarks are at issue in this lawsuit:

Reg. No. 829,265	AAA Mark, used in connection with a variety of automobile association services and emergency roadside services
Reg. No. 2,158,654	AAA & Design Mark, used in connection with a variety of automobile association services and emergency roadside services
Reg. No. 3,316,227	AAA & Design Mark, used in connection with “[i]ndicating membership in a(n) automobile membership club”
Reg. No. 1,168,790	TRIPLE A Mark, used in connection with a variety of automobile association services
Reg. No. 3,046,904	AAA Mark, used in connection with repair services
Reg. No. 3,046,905	AAA & Design Mark, used in connection with repair services
Reg. No. 3,102,319	AAA & Design Mark, used in connection with vehicle parts
Reg. No. 5,036,379	AAA Mark & Design, used in connection with a variety of automobile association services and emergency roadside services
Reg. No. 1,449,079	AAA APPROVED AUTO REPAIR & Design Mark, used in connection with automobile repair services
Reg. No. 3,604,164	AAA TOTAL REPAIR CARE Mark, used in connection with auto diagnosis and repair services

AAA seeks damages and asks that those damages be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and Indiana law. It also seeks equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

July 18, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Eye 4 Group Sues Over Use of Eyefourgroup.com

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Eye 4 Group, LLC Corporation (“E4G”) of Fishers, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. Defendants are Indianapolis Signworks, Inc. (“ISW”) of Indianapolis, Indiana and Andrew Chapman of Carmel, Indiana, the owner of ISW.

Plaintiff E4G is in the business of graphic design, sign manufacturing, metal fabrication, promotional material and apparel. It owns a registration for the trademark EYE 4 GROUP, Reg. No. 4,694,655, which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It has also an application for the registration of a second trademark for EYE 4, pending under Serial No. 87/018,205.

E4G states that Defendant ISW is a direct competitor in the business of making signs as well as associated tools and products. E4G, which owns and operates the website eye4group.com, contends that ISW has used the internet domain name “eyefourgroup.com” and, in doing so, has infringed E4G’s intellectual property. E4G asserts that Defendants’ actions constitute a knowing infringement of its trademark rights and that those actions were intentional, willful and in bad faith.

In this Indiana lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges direct and contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act; dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act; violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and related wrongdoing under Indiana state law.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary relief, including punitive damages, attorney fees and costs of the litigation.

June 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Brew Pub Accused of Infringing Use of Yeti Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Great Divide Brewing Company of Denver, Colorado filed an infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc. of Jeffersonville, Indiana.

Defendant is listed in the complaint as the owner of a restaurant and brewery named “Red Yeti Brewing Co.” a/k/a “Red Yeti Restaurant and Brewpub.” The complaint asserts that Red Yeti Brewing Co. wrongfully employs the term “Yeti” and a yeti design in its marketing.

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Red Yeti’s conduct infringes two of its trademarks, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,957,257 for a Yeti word mark and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,115,050 for a Yeti design mark. Both have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff asserts that Red Yeti’s actions constitute a deliberate attempt to trade upon Defendant’s goodwill and reputation and that its actions are willful and malicious. In this Indiana federal lawsuit, filed by trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, the following claims for relief are listed:

• Trademark Infringement in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
• Unfair Competition – False Designation of Origin in Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
• Federal Dilution
• Common Law Unfair Competition
• Common Law Trademark Infringement

• Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-113

Great Divide seeks damages, including punitive damages, along with equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

May 12, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Usage of “Hyperpure” Alleged to Infringe Hydrapure Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – A trademark attorney for Plaintiff NIBCO Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana commenced trademark infringement litigation in the Northern District of Indiana.

Defendant in the litigation is Legend Valve & Fitting, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. It is accused of infringing NIBCO’s HYDRAPURE trademark, which has been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Trademark Registration Nos. 4,296,125 and 4,314,186 in conjunction with the sale of metal pipe fittings.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s use of HYPERPURE to market its goods creates an identical commercial impression to Plaintiff’s HYDRAPURE trademark. Calling Defendant’s use “a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation” of its own trademark, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s use of HYPERPURE will confuse consumers as to the source of the goods.

Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Legend chose the HYPERPURE mark in bad faith in an attempt to associate Defendant’s products with Plaintiff’s trademark and, in so doing, appropriate the goodwill that Plaintiff has built in the brand.

In this Indiana lawsuit, a trademark lawyer for NIBCO lists the following claims:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition/False Designation of Origin
• Count III: Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition

• Count V: Federal Trademark Dilution

NIBCO asks the court for equitable relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and attorney fees.

April 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark and Copyright Litigation: Coach Sues Indiana Retailer on Allegations of Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Intellectual property attorneys for Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. of New York, New York and Coach Services, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida (collectively, “Coach”) filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana.

Coach contends that Defendants Zip Thru Mart, Charles Estok Sr., and Janice Estok, all of Knox, Indiana, infringed various Coach trademarks, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition to trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Coach asserts that Defendants have committed trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, as well as trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment under Indiana common law.

Coach’s allegations stem from Defendants’ purported “designing, manufacturing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale” products that bear counterfeit Coach trademarks. Defendants are further accused of having engaged in this behavior “negligently and/or knowingly and intentionally, with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Coach’s rights, or with bad faith.”

In support of its allegations of infringement and related conduct, Coach states that it sent an investigator to the Zip Thru Mart. Its investigator saw multiple items bearing Coach trademarks, which Coach contends were counterfeit. Additional goods bearing purportedly counterfeit trademarks were seized by a Homeland Security Investigations officer during a subsequent visit to the business.

The intellectual property listed in this litigation includes numerous trademarks for “Coach,” “Coach New York,” “CC,” “Poppy” and similar trademarks. Coach also claims infringement of its copyrights, listing copyright registrations, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, for its “Legacy Stripe” design (registration number VA000704542) “Signature C” design (registration number VA0001228917), “Op Art” design (registration number VA0001694574) and “Horse & Carriage” design (registration number VA0001714051).

In this Indiana lawsuit, filed by trademark and copyright attorneys for Coach, the intellectual property claims are listed as follows:

• Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count III: Trade Dress Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count IV: False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count V: Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
• Count VI: Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 501
• Count VII: Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count VIII: Common Law Unfair Competition

• Count IX: Unjust Enrichment

In addition to statutory damages of $2 million per counterfeit mark, per type of counterfeit good, Coach seeks equitable relief; additional damages, both statutory and punitive; costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Coach has a history of requesting statutory damages that are considerably in excess of what has eventually been awarded by the courts. For example, in Coach, Inc. v. Paula’s Store Sportwear LLC, 2014 WL 347893 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2014), Coach requested $800,000 in statutory damages – $100,000 for each of eight counterfeited marks – from a shop from which four counterfeit Coach wallets and two counterfeit Coach handbags had been seized. When awarding damages to Coach, the court noted that the retail value of the six counterfeit items was less than $1500 and awarded $5000 for each of the eight marks that had been counterfeited, multiplied by the two types of goods, for a total statutory damages award of $80,000.

March 21, 2016

Indiana Trademark and Copyright Litigation: Sweetwater Contends Hello Music Copied its Website, Infringed its Intellectual Property

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Indiana intellectual property lawyers for Plaintiff Sweetwater Sound, Inc. (“Sweetwater”) of Fort Wayne, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hello Music, LLC of Austin, Texas infringed its trademarks, which have registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Trademark Nos. 3,652,255 and 3,652,249. In addition, Sweetwater Sound contends that Hello Music infringed its copyright, issued by the U.S. Copyright Office as TX 8-064-067, which protects the contents of its website. Other counts of alleged wrongdoing, including claims under Indiana law, have been asserted.

Hello Music is accused of duplicating copyrighted content from Sweetwater’s website and using that protected content on its own website. Sweetwater contends that part of the content purportedly copied includes the Sweetwater trademark. Sweetwater also asserts that these acts by Hello Music constitute a willful and deliberate attempt to trade on Sweetwater’s goodwill.

In the complaint, filed in federal court Friday, the following claims are made:

• Count I: Copyright Infringement
• Count II: Trademark Infringement (False Designation of Origin)
• Count III: Trademark Dilution

• Count IV: Unfair Competition

Sweetwater asks the court to grant equitable relief, including the destruction of infringing materials. It also seeks actual and treble damages, disgorgement of all profits that resulted from infringing acts, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.

February 11, 2016

Indiana Copyright and Trademark Litigation: Magazine Publisher Sues Commemorative Plaque Maker Alleging Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana copyright and trademark attorneys for Plaintiff The Rough Notes Company, Inc. (“Rough Notes”) of Carmel, Indiana commenced a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

The Defendant, That’s Great News, LLC (“Great News”) of Cheshire, Connecticut, is accused of infringing U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,585,340, which has been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as unfair competition, false designation of origin, and dilution under the Lanham Act. Allegations of copyright infringement of material protected by Copyright Registrations Registration Nos. TX 7-988-447 and TX 7-988-464, as well as other related claims, have also been made.

Plaintiff Rough Notes is a publisher of print and online magazines. It indicates that it has used its “Rough Notes” trademark since 1878 and that the trademark was registered in 2002. Rough Notes contends that Defendant Great News has violated it copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights by producing samples of commemorative plaques that feature protected content owned by Rough Notes and distributing samples via e-mail to solicit the purchase of a plaque.

In this federal complaint, filed with the court by Indiana copyright and trademark lawyers for Rough Notes, the following causes of action are alleged:

• Copyright Infringement
• Federal Unfair Competition & False Designation of Origin
• Federal Trademark Infringement
• Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Federal Trademark Dilution
• Common Law Unfair Competition

• Unjust Enrichment

Rough Notes seeks equitable relief; statutory damages, including up to $150,000 for willful infringement; and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Plaintiff may have difficulty overcoming the defense of nominative fair use of a trademark in this lawsuit. That doctrine provides that, as a matter of law, nominative use of a mark — where the only word reasonably available to describe a particular thing is pressed into service — lies outside the strictures of trademark law. Defendant may argue that its use of “Rough Notes” on its commemorative plaques was permissible as those are the only words reasonably available to adequately describe a plaque displaying an article featured in a “Rough Notes” publication.
Continue reading

January 11, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Barrington Music Sues Guitar Center, Music & Arts and Eastman Music Alleging Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Barrington Music Products, Inc. of Niles, Michigan filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. The Defendants in the litigation are Guitar Center Stores, Inc. of Westlake Village, California; Music & Arts Centers of Bel Air, Maryland, which is owned by Guitar Center; and Eastman Music Company of Pomona, California.

Plaintiff Barrington Music Products offers musical instruments, specifically featuring its “Roy

Benson” and “L.A. Sax” lines. Defendant Guitar Center has been in business more than 50 years and advertises itself as “the world’s largest retailer of guitars, amplifiers, drums, keyboards, recording, live sound, DJ, and lighting equipment.” It has more than 260 stores across the United States. Defendant Music & Arts offers musical instrument for sale, as well as offering repairs, rentals and instruction at its various locations nationwide. Defendant Eastman Music Company, which offers musical instruments globally, has been in business for more than 20 years.

The trademarks at issue in the lawsuit are U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,831,402 and 3,831,403. They have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and cover VENTO both as a standard character trademark and as a stylized trademark.

Defendants are accused of trademark infringement, trademark dilution by blurring, unfair competition via passing off and trade name infringement of the VENTO trademark due to their marketing of wind instruments under the name “Ventus,” which means “wind” in Latin. Defendant’s “Vento” is Italian for “wind.”

Music&Arts.jpg

Plaintiff contends that it is “common knowledge that the English translations of VENTUS and VENTO are the same.” Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants use the Ventus mark with the intent to deceive consumers by causing them to believe that Defendants’ Ventus products are related to Plaintiff’s Vento products. Plaintiff claims that the use of the Ventus mark has caused, and will continue to cause, consumer confusion.

In this lawsuit, the following causes of action are alleged:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement – Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition – Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
• Count III: False Designation of Origin – Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B))
• Count IV: Federal Trademark Dilution – Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
• Count V: Trade Name Infringement under Indiana Common Law

• Count VI: Passing Off in Violation of Indiana’s Unfair Competition Doctrine

Barrington seeks equitable relief along with damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

December 21, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indiana Botanic Gardens Sues VitalMax Vitamins Alleging Infringing Use of “Accu-Hear”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Plaintiff Indiana Botanic Gardens, Inc. of Hobart, Indiana filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Almark Products, Inc. d/b/a VitalMax Vitamins (“VitalMax”) of Delray Beach, Florida infringed its trademarked “ACCU HEAR”, U.S. Trademark No. 3,010,289, which has been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Indiana Botanic allege that it has been in the business of processing, packaging and otherwise selling variety of herbal products for many years. It contends that it has done so under the ACCU HEAR trademark, which has been registered for use in connection with dietary supplements.

In this trademark litigation, Indiana Botanic accuses Defendant VitalMax of production, labeling, sale and offering for sale of a nutritional supplement offered under the name ACCU-HEAR. This term, Indiana Botanic states, is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s ACCU HEAR trademark and will irreparably harm Plaintiff by diminishing the reputation and goodwill of that trademark. Indiana Botanic asserts that VitalMax infringed the ACCU HEAR trademark willfully and deliberately.

In this federal complaint, filed by a trademark attorney for Indiana Botanic, the following is alleged:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement

• Count II: Unfair Competition Under Federal Law

The “Jurisdiction and Venue” section of this federal complaint lists additional claims – “state trademark infringement, injury to business reputation and dilution, deceptive trade practices, deceptive business practices and unfair competition under the laws of the State of Indiana” – but those claims were not included as separate counts.

Indiana Botanic seeks equitable relief along with damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.